harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Fedotov" <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] freeze for M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP
Date Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:41:27 GMT
Hello Stepan,

I have fixed more verifier failures, see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-5785

Thanks!

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Stepan Mishura
<stepan.mishura@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/22/08, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > Alexei Fedotov wrote:
>  > > As far as I understand Eclipse IP committee needs a revision number to
>  > > be supplied (no binaries involved).
>  > >
>  >
>  > Apologies, I missed that point in the discussions around compiler level etc.
>  >  If it is simply a well-defined revision of the verifier code then that is
>  > quite different.
>  >
>  > > The favour Vasily is asking about
>  > > is providing him with a slightly tested revision. This would suppress
>  > > a normal work of committers for one day. Is it something we cannot
>  > > afford?
>  > >
>  >
>  > Of course, in that area of the code I think it is quite reasonable.  It
>  > would not prevent people working in the other areas of Harmony (such as GC,
>  > JIT, and class library).
>  >
>
>  OK, freezing only verifier code can be a compromise in this case.
>  But I think it makes sense for other areas to ask people not commit
>  risky changes (i.e. make feature freeze and commit only bug fixes) -
>  it will help with detection and resolution of possible verifier
>  regressions. I believe that this acceptable too.
>
>  Could I ask all folks interesting in M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP release to look
>  through tests failures to understand if there are regressions in the
>  verifier or not?
>
>  Tests results for r650380 are almost ready [1] (testing the next
>  r650564 snapshot will be launched in 2-3 hours).  If there are no
>  regressions then I think r650380 (or r650564) can be promoted as
>  M5.5_Eclipse_TPTP. If you find verifier regression please let
>  everybody know ASAP - it should be fixed quickly.
>
>  [1] http://people.apache.org/~mloenko/snapshot_testing/script/r650380/index.html
>
>  Thanks,
>  Stepan.
>
>
>
>  > Of course, we cannot prevent the revision number of the entire repository
>  > changing over time, but you could nominate a givne revision number for the
>  > verifier code to be taken by Eclipse.
>  >
>  > Did I understand this right?
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  > Tim
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com>
>  > wrote:
>  > >
>  > > > I'm really not convinced this is a good idea for Harmony, and my
>  > concerns
>  > > > are in two parts:
>  > > >
>  > > >  1) Our schedule should not be dictated by an external project,
>  > especially
>  > > > when it is their process that seems to be setting the artificial time
>  > limit.
>  > > > Why not show some flexibility to meet our dates?
>  > > >
>  > > >  2) Our principle delivery mechanism is source code.  While we make
>  > binaries
>  > > > available as a convenience we should not encourage dependents to put
>  > > > dependencies on our build tools.  They should take source and compile
it
>  > > > themselves for their own environment.
>  > > >
>  > > >  Regards,
>  > > >  Tim
>  > > >
>  > > >  Vasily Levchenko wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > > $subj.
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > > >
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>



-- 
With best regards,
Alexei

Mime
View raw message